I’m not normally one to be “lost for words”, Trish – but this was one of those instances where I thought the story spoke for itself. 😉 I don’t think I could add anything to this, without taking away from it’s internal irony… 😀

(No offence intended to any of my Blog followers who hold religious beliefs – but you have to admit, it is pretty funny. )

Aside from the obvious humour – which as you quite rightly suggest, needs no further comment – if this decision means that a few residential claims have a greater chance of being granted then it is a positive thing

Although in my opinion the architecture is one of the more positive outcomes of religion, I have often stopped to wonder about the expense of constructing/maintaining such elaborate buildings. Especially relative to, say, the benefits that could be achieved through alternate use of the same funds.

In the context of earthquake-stricken towns, it feels wrong (again, in my opinion) that millions of dollars be spent on these buildings while many people cannot afford to rebuild their homes. Here’s hoping this move frees up a little more resource for families in need as opposed to going straight to the insurers’ bottom line.

Peoples’ homes must be Number 1 priority, as I just don’t think it acceptable that our Cantabrian cuzzies should have to go through another winter in substandard conditions.

I’m also wondering that if private insurance companies are unwilling to reinsure new buildings, that perhaps we need to expand the role of the EQC and re-invent it as a new “State Insurance”, along the lines of the old SOE.

It’s times like these we need to think outside the proverbial square and employ some of our much-vaunted #8 fencing wire initiatives to get things moving in Christchurch.

I sometimes think that if this disaster had happened in the 1950s, the government of the day would’ve had the place re-built, with a few new railway lines thrown in for good measure, and maybe asked the good people of Canterbury, “would you like a new school with that?”…